From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Must be owner to truncate? |
Date: | 2005-07-07 20:44:36 |
Message-ID: | 20050707204436.GR49841@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 01:48:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > The current permissions checks for truncate seem to be excessive. It
> > requires that you're the owner of the relation instead of requiring
> > that you have delete permissions on the relation. It was pointed out
> > that truncate doesn't call triggers but it seems like that would be
> > something easy enough to check for.
>
> There are other reasons for restricting it:
> * truncate takes a much stronger lock than a plain delete does.
> * truncate is not MVCC-safe.
>
> I don't really agree with the viewpoint that truncate is just a quick
> DELETE, and so I do not agree that DELETE permissions should be enough
> to let you do a TRUNCATE.
What about adding a truncate permission? I would find it useful, as it
seems would others.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ayush Parashar | 2005-07-07 20:55:55 | Multi-byte and client side character encoding tests for copy command.. |
Previous Message | Ayush Parashar | 2005-07-07 20:32:32 | <no subject> |